Sunday, November 27, 2016

“Bipartisan
darkness descends on the public realm [in 1980], preparation for the rule of
the Right.” [Liberty Under Siege,
Walter Karp, 139]

Or in preparation
for the rule of Trump.

It is quite
amazing how quickly in the face of a threat like the one Trump was alleged to
be that bipartisanship emerges. Obama saying, in essence, to give Trump a
chance and Joe Biden saying he will work with Vice President elect Pence. The
signs are there for those who care to see them. And it is important to
understand why this happens. So what was the threat? What is it?

The threat previously
was Trump, that is, before he won. But now the danger is that the forces that
brought Trump to the presidency will not be stilled or pacified, thereby
threatening the status quo and it protectors who reign in Washington. For there
are “forces” abroad in the land that threaten the status quo, e.g., the growing
popularity of legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. That this is a
significant threat to the status quo is not appreciated by most people because
they do not appreciate the importance of “the war on drugs” for maintaining the
prevailing establishment. That war, which is usually presented as a somewhat
marginal policy that needs some tweaking to be made more rational, is actually
as important as “the war on terror” for maintaining “the rule of the Right.”
So, to allow the war on drugs to be undermined, especially to be undermined for
the sake of individual liberty, is dangerous, even as dangerous as legitimizing
“sexual preferences” – as if one’s sexual practices were “preferences” like
one’s taste in ice cream – for the sake of personal liberty. Such “allowances” create cracks in what is
called “civilization,” cracks that imply that “civilization” – or as Huck Finn
put it, “sivilization” – is more about repressing than elevating or liberating
human kind.

This is
dangerous stuff in a regime that embraces or is built on the idea that without
a powerfully pervasive national government anarchy will prevail and human kind
will descend into darkness. So, such cracks must be sealed up as best they can
be, e.g., by legitimating “same sex marriage” so unwed gays and lesbians, those
who espouse “the gay life style,” can be viewed with suspicion. Respecting
marijuana, then, expect the emergence of “scientific” claims about the dangers
of marijuana, followed by attempts by “the Feds” to reassert control over the
use of this “drug.”

And expect
too, more broadly, that “the rule of the Right” under Trump will reinforce
those aspects of our allegedly capitalistic society that discipline “the many,”
that is, we ordinary people. For example, by elevating the very wealthy to
positions of power while emphasizing their wealth, Trump reminds the many of
their unfitness, that they are “the many” because they do not have the innate
or inbred discipline to be among “the few,” and, therefore, need to disciplined
by our pervasively powerful government and its controllers. Such people, the
many, should not be allowed to use marijuana or other drugs recreationally
because they lack the inbred discipline of “the few,” discipline in this case
to be provided by the nation’s policy of mass incarceration. These are among
the means to still or pacify a people, especially a people grown restless with
deference to its “superiors.”

So “the
bipartisan darkness” that is descending – once again – “on the public realm” is
the darkness of a “civilization” – actually a regime – that is constantly
threatened by the conviction that human beings were “created equal and endowed
by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” And as Lincoln put it, these words are
”a stumbling block to those who . . . might seek to turn a
free people back into the hateful paths of despotism,” a barrier to any
potential tyrant or tyrants who would, in the name of “civilization,” make
human kind unfree and rule them without their consent.

Saturday, November 19, 2016

“The
grass-roots political activity of the citizenry and its inseparable adjunct,
the entry into political life of nonorganizational politicians, is a constant
threat to party organizations. It sparks political ambitions outside their
control. It opens new avenues to public renown. It encourages outsiders to
enter primaries and gives them a chance to win. It opens to officeholders
themselves the opportunity it win public support on their own and thus render
themselves independent of the organization. It is therefore the perpetual
endeavor of party organizations to discourage and even squash grass-roots
movements.” [Walter Karp, Indispensable
Enemies, 26]

Make no
mistake: The Republican and the Democratic parties have the same agenda when it
comes to Donald Trump, viz., controlling him or rendering him as powerless as
they can. That is, they will try to either “mainstream” him or they will
sabotage his administration. And this agenda is not the product of malevolence.
It is merely the result of self-interest.

Have you
not wondered by Obama and the Democrats have not said that they will take the
tact taken by the Republicans vis-à-vis Obama, i.e., rigid, unbending
opposition? It’s because such a strategy would inflame, aggravate those who are
actively protesting Trump’s presidency, thereby strengthening those groups and
their grass-roots political activity, activity that the party might not be able
to control. Such grass-roots activity must be “discouraged” or “squashed” in
order for the Democratic Party establishment to maintain its control of the
party, control that is, as Bernie Sanders’ candidacy indicated, is tenuous at
best.

And for
similar reasons the mainstream Republicans are doing their best to “play ball
with Trump,” and they will do so as long as the ball game is being played on
their field according to their rules. Should Trump try to change the game, as
it were, then mainstream Republicans will, by means both fair and foul, place
obstacles in Trump’s way. As we all know by now, congressional inactivity,
legislative stalemate, is anything but uncommon. Trump will learn that the
political arena is not like the business arena at all. As Harry Truman said of
Eisenhower: “Ike will say ‘do this’ or ‘do that,’ expecting it to be done, but
nothing will happen.” So too Trump will discover that our politicians are most
interested in preserving the status quo and, therewith, their own power.

“A party
organization is not like a building which, once erected, requires no further
human effort. Keeping a party organization intact requires constant and
unremitting effort in the face of perpetual and unremitting peril…. From the
point of view of a party organization, every elected official is a potential
menace.” [Karp, 22-23]

This is
especially true with the likes of Donald Trump, i.e., an elected official whose
debt to a party organization is miniscule. Trump won the election, but that is
all he won so far. And given our party organizations, that does not amount to
very much.

Sunday, November 13, 2016

The 2016
election provides a good example for debating the differences between a direct
popular election for president and using the Electoral College. Trump won the
vote in the Electoral College but lost the popular vote to Hillary Clinton by,
as present count, about 600,000 votes. That is a lot of votes, surpassing the
500,000 vote majority Al Gore got in 2000 when he ran against George Bush. And
why shouldn’t the popular vote decide presidential elections? What could go
wrong?

The 2016
popular vote count illustrates one feature of a direct popular election that
doesn’t get too much attention, viz., the fact that such a scheme rewards
candidates for president for amassing votes wherever they can. So, for example,
Clinton got 2.7 million more popular votes in California than did Trump, and
she got 1.5 million more popular votes in New York than Trump got. Under the
Electoral College scheme, the size of Clinton’s win in these states is
meaningless, whereas with a direct popular election makes such majorities quite
meaningful. And given that frequently our presidential elections have been
decided by much fewer than 4.2 million votes, it is possible that the election
in these two states, given such large majorities, would decide the election
nationwide. In the 34 elections since 1824, in 17 of these elections did the
winner prevail by more than 4.2 million votes.

But the
question is not only what has happened but what might happen when the electoral
scheme is changed to a direct popular election. For example, where would
Clinton have better spent her time and effort under a direct popular vote
scheme, California or North Carolina? It would have to be the former because
winning a close election in North Carolina would not be as important as
amassing as many popular votes in California or New York. Votes in closely
contested states cancel each other out as it were, while votes in one party
states are worth more insofar as they contribute more heavily to a candidate’s
popular vote total vis-à-vis that candidate’s opponent.

Would this
be a good thing or a bad thing? I don’t really know but I do know it would be
different. Maybe it would be worth a try but what is certain is that mouthing
phrases like “Let’s democratize our presidential elections” won’t answer these
questions, which it seems it would be prudent to answer before making the
change.

Saturday, November 12, 2016

George
McGovern in 1972 won the Democratic Party’s nomination for president despite
the opposition of the party’s establishment types. He could do this thanks to
reforms the Democrats made after the riots in Chicago during their national
convention that nominated Hubert Humphrey for president even though Humphrey had
avoided the Democratic primaries. Then, thanks to the same reforms and
post-Watergate, Jimmy Carter won the party’ nomination for president in 1976,
again against the wishes of the party’s establishment. And, of course, this
year Donald Trump won the Republican Party’s nomination for president against
the wishes of the party’s establishment, while Hillary Clinton won her party’s
nomination largely because of that party’s “super delegates,” who were not
elected and were intended to serve the wishes of the party’s establishment, as
they faithfully did.

One of the
most interesting and important facets of Carter’s nomination and election in 1976
is that it was not hailed by our intelligentsia as “democratic,” “popular,” or
“republican.” Newsweek wrote that
“Americans [are] sunk in malaise,” while the NY Times predicted the gloomiest of times as the nation lacked a
“cause…to quicken [the people’s] energies and national pride…as though the
national compass had been lost.”

As one
author put it: “The democratic awakening [was] a spiritual disease.” Barbara Tuchman, eminent historian, wrote that
“the idea of democracy survives in disenchantment…battered and whipped.” Daniel
Bell, eminent social scientist, feared that popular participation in politics
was a threat to “constitutional democracy.” Henry Kissinger was said to be
depressed, while President Ford was deeply distressed because there was, he
said, a “crisis of authority.” As our author put it: “When millions of
Americans have a voice in the choice of a candidate, the result is elitist.
When a handful of party potentates do the choosing…democracy in America
thrives.”

Trust me:
The same phenomenon will follow, has followed Trump’s victory in our latest
presidential election. And it will follow because “the shaken political
establishment has no wish to praise the awakened democracy; it expects to bury
it at the first opportunity.” According to our intelligentsia, once the
political establishment is weakened, it is fair to say that the people have
become a mob and must be denied. And because Trump lost the popular vote, this
campaign will pretend to be democratically driven, as did the opposition to
Carter and McGovern, even though its goal is to re-legitimize what is clearly a
de-legitimized elite. And this is evidenced by the fact that no one who
supports democratizing the electoral college has a word to say against how
Hillary Clinton won the nomination. This is important because, as with the old
adage, “I care not who makes the laws so long as I can interpret them,” so too
it may be said that “I care not how
the people elect a president so long as I can control who gets nominated to run.”

So, if the
past is any indication, prepare for a reaction against democratic or popular
government or political processes, just as happened in the 70’s and led to the
election of – and bipartisan embrace of – Ronald Reagan, which embrace became
apparent when, unlike the response to Nixon’s lawlessness, Reagan’s lawlessness
was covered up, covered over so the “Gipper” would not be impeached and removed
from office and his “movie” would end happily as he faded, both mentally and
physically, from the scene. Some will
find such a prospect reassuring, but the Trump phenomenon is the promise that
has always been endemic to the “Reagan Reaction,” as both Trump and Reagan were
committed to “making America great again.” McGovern and Carter offered us and
even won some degree of popular approval for a different kind of politics, but
our establishment, both Republicans and Democrats, rejected and sabotaged it,
and did so with great success.

So the
question might be: Where do we go from here? The establishment will seek to
undermine Trump but has nothing substantive to offer in its place except more
of the same. It merely wants its power back. “Order” and “civility” will be
restored while our republic will, once again, become an oligarchy where the few
will prosper while the many will not. It is a story as old as the Constitution
itself.